1. The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney: The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July. A Media Research Center analysis of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer blasted the news coverage in an August 2 column, calling the trip “a major substantive success” that was wrapped “in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.”

Quote:

3. Those Biased Debate Moderators: Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.
Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.

The article was written from the non partisan Media Research Center. Their about page explains their mission.

About Us: Media Research Center wrote:

The Media Research Center is proud to celebrate 25 years of holding the liberal media accountable for shamelessly advancing a left-wing agenda, distorting the truth, and vilifying the conservative movement.

Since 1987, our unwavering commitment to neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive so-called objective reporting.

We’re grateful to our fans, grassroots supporters, and donors for allowing us to fight liberal media bias for a quarter century. Your passion for our cause has helped us achieve extraordinary success in shaping public opinion. Here’s to the next 25 years of forcing the media to "Tell the Truth!"

And the reality defying freakfest continues unabated. You'd think after being so thoroughly trashed it would bring them crashing back to reality.. But no. They just double down on crazy.

And they wonder why they're unelectable.

I don't watch ABC, MSNBC or any other news. I regard MSNBC as trash. So they may be right. I don't mind the NYT.

However, the gaffes that really struck me were the crazy ones, and you saw this on Obama in the last election. The reverend Wright this was everywhere. This time, I don't think it was Romney, but it was his crazy bed fellows. how many crazy republicans pontificated on rape, biology and abortion? I was shocked to hear the first guy, and then there was another psycho. Women didn't like that, and apparently they took it out on Romney.

Yeah, they're really bad. I was cycling through the news channels last night as I watched the results pour in, and I couldn't watch for more than a few seconds before they would say something that made me roll my eyes. It's a close race, but I think they may be even worst than Fox with convincing themselves that their own farts are perfume.

Those were problems but he managed well. His message was reasonable and he did manage to fire up people to vote for him. The proof of which is the percentage polled in favor of him. Compare that with McCain.

Obama had opened multiple fronts against him. Voter turnout was just one of them. Getting new voters registered was another._________________There is no guarantee a stupid Dalai Lama won’t come next -- Dalai Lama

And the reality defying freakfest continues unabated. You'd think after being so thoroughly trashed it would bring them crashing back to reality.

A two percent margin of victory is not a "thorough trashing".

Fox is egregiously biased (although MSNBC has actually become far worse lately). This is true. However, they've got a point here. The television news media in particular served as a willing enabler and catalyst of Obama's populist demagoguery and ministry of truth, and even the most purportedly "mainstream" of them lied by omission, refusing to cover important stories if they made him look bad.

Also, social networks (in their broadest sense) are the fabric of communitarianism, which is fertile ground for populist demagogues. Obama owes much of his success not to his brilliant use of the internet and social media, but the mere demographic characteristics of its emergence.

When you rule by a 2% margin, anything you owe 'much of your success' to is critical. In Obama's case, there is a panoply of critical factors, but one of his undeniably the catalysis of his populist demagoguery by evolving communication technologies, to include biased (i.e. 'market-oriented') TV news media and the timely explosion of internet social media among a largely age-defined demographic. There's no denying it. There's also no denying that, given Obama's small margins of victory in each of the battleground states, this media bias is a factor important enough to have swayed the election.

However, the election is over; deal with it. Life goes on. Whining about it isn't going to change anything. Only regulatory intervention (not gonna happen) or a rigorous, scientific study that proves such bias will convince anybody and cause it to change, and that's a difficult if not impossible undertaking. How does one demonstrate lies of omission? How does one quantify the sarcastic smirk or slightly raised eyebrow on Brian Williams' or Andrea Mitchell's face?_________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Fox is egregiously biased (although MSNBC has actually become far worse lately). This is true. However, they've got a point here. The television news media in particular served as a willing enabler and catalyst of Obama's populist demagoguery and ministry of truth, and even the most purportedly "mainstream" of them lied by omission, refusing to cover important stories if they made him look bad.

that is likely more to do with Obama being the incumbent. It was hard to hear myself think over all the snoring the media was doing during the Bush years.

Obama didn’t win despite the numbers. He won because the media didn’t report them. They spent an entire campaign promoting social issues – abortion, gay marriage and more – where journalists near 100 percent support. The onslaught against GOP candidates was huge. The left/media strategy was merely to link Romney with any social conservative they could and hype what that candidate said.

Interesting. That's liberals' fault? I notice that the Canadian left wing media doesn't bang on about gay marriage. Maybe because IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. Conservatives have only themselves to blame for this.

It was hard to hear myself think over all the snoring the media was doing during the Bush years.

I don't know what planet you were on, but on Earth the media was banging the war drum, and then, around 2003 as people started thinking about the 2004 election, they started hammering on Bush and did not let up for five years. They jumped on the anti-war bandwagon, politicized the climate change debate, captured and highlighted even the most trivial gaffe, took every opportunity to take statements out of context and twist them, and ranted and blamed everything possible on him, up to and including the weather._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

No, you don't "gotta love" a spurious claim that Obama's victory validates or justifies their irresponsible, idiotic lies and propaganda. Roe v. Wade was never in danger. Medicare is no safer under Obama. No bogeyman legislative agenda of the far right is any more or less likely._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

They keep trying to pass "Personhood" amendments, of course Roe v. Wade is in danger.

Some asshat proposes it, and it usually doesn't even make it to the floor, much less pass. The latest attempt (which was in your State, where it belongs, and not at the National level) didn't even make it to the state ballot to be voted upon by the public.

This is fear-mongering by the left. The facts are simple: only a small, vocal minority of the population support such ideas, even in the most socially conservative of states. The chances of something like that happening now at the National level are nil.

You might, during a Republican primary, hear a Republican candidate pandering to religious fundamentalists say they support or "would not stand in the way of" such a bill, but the bottom line is that Congress is never going to pass such a thing. Even the most conservative state legislatures are highly unlikely to pass such a thing. In mainstream thought, completely outlawing abortion is an idea out in la-la land. That's why you also would never see a Supreme Court, even one stacked with conservative justices, overturn Roe v. Wade or rule favorably on the Constitutionality of such an amendment.

It's a bogeyman. It's propaganda. It's the Party of Fear doing what it does: terrorizing the ignorant into voting their way. "They gonna put y'all back in chains!"_________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

The SCOTUS doesn't uphold certain individual rights which seem to be obvious, so another Rhenquist, Thomas or Scalia could easily end up overturning Roe v. Wade._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

The SCOTUS goes with the flow a lot more than people want to think. That's how we ended up with direct Federal income taxation, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. After all their legal noodling, they also heavily consider "the public interest", and it has weighed heavily in a lot of contentious decisions._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Then that should pretty much settle the argument about whether or not the Constitution has any remaining validity.

I would agree it is a factor when considering how much remaining validity it has.

There is a reason, however, why a court was established to interpret the Constitution and why a process exists to amend it.

I cannot imagine a modern Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. I can imagine them refusing to hear the case, and opining that it is up to the Legislature to supply any necessary definition of what a "person" is, in the form of a Constitutional amendment._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

I once heard or read that the SCOTUS doesn't re-hear issues very often, allowing established ruling to stand for quite some time. I think I'd heard 30-40 years, but no actual rule. Next year marks Roe v. Wade's 40th anniversary. For now, it probably matters what kind of legacy Roberts is after._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

It was hard to hear myself think over all the snoring the media was doing during the Bush years.

I don't know what planet you were on, but on Earth the media was banging the war drum, and then, around 2003 as people started thinking about the 2004 election, they started hammering on Bush and did not let up for five years. They jumped on the anti-war bandwagon, politicized the climate change debate, captured and highlighted even the most trivial gaffe, took every opportunity to take statements out of context and twist them, and ranted and blamed everything possible on him, up to and including the weather.

like swift boat?

The hammering started later, when basically all his TOTALLY voluntary policies were failing.

It was hard to hear myself think over all the snoring the media was doing during the Bush years.

I don't know what planet you were on, but on Earth the media was banging the war drum, and then, around 2003 as people started thinking about the 2004 election, they started hammering on Bush and did not let up for five years. They jumped on the anti-war bandwagon, politicized the climate change debate, captured and highlighted even the most trivial gaffe, took every opportunity to take statements out of context and twist them, and ranted and blamed everything possible on him, up to and including the weather.

like swift boat?

The hammering started later, when basically all his TOTALLY voluntary policies were failing.

Failing. Like the "Surge" you mean. That was the biggest rant of all for a couple of years. "We have lost the war! We need to retreat! The surge has failed! My pussy hurts!!"

Yes, this is just like swift boat, and also like the battering that Republicans gave Bill Clinton toward the end of his term, and the battering Democrats gave G.H.W. Bush at the end of his term. Except it's been getting progressively worse, and this is the point where I'd say it got wholly out of hand -- there seemed to be a unprecedented level of hatred, spite, and outright slander and libel, at the expense of the country as a whole, and it lasted for a full five years on full throttle. It's old hat now, because they lowered the bar, but I was dismayed when they were comparing a sitting U.S. president to Hitler, portraying him as a vampire sucking the blood out of the Statue of Liberty, and calling him a "war criminal". ALL of that shit was politically motivated, created by U.S. Democrats so they could get back in office and pursue their socio-economic agenda. It hurt the U.S. greatly, because it was supported to a degree by the media, and those ideas were propagated across the globe by other leftists, who also wanted to see the U.S. on a more leftist path and whose lemming herds were only too eager to believe (and used to doing it).

That's how we ended up with 20-something asshats in places like this spouting off nonsense like, "U.S. is biggest exporter of terrorism on planet! War criminals!" and such, and believing it as truisms. However... when the Barack the Magic Negro too office, Abra-ca-fuckin-daba, IT STOPPED. All these things were suddenly no big deal.

While he had led the world to believe he would do the opposite, he continued every single thing that Bush was doing and made any number of them worse. People say, "Well, he didn't invade two countries...", but he didn't have a 9/11 either. He actually ramped up Bush's Global War on Terror (while changing its name to make sound nicer). Instead of bringing people to justice, he murdered them without even the military justice he had said was unfair, and he spread a CIA octopus all over the Middle East, engaging in covert operations of military scale on an unprecedented scale.

Yet, after five years of foaming-at-the-mouth Democrat anger and vitriol, when it became clear that Obama was content to let the economic crisis last his entire term so he could leverage it to rationalize unprecedented deficit spending, and the Tea Party movement got under way, Democrats (Nancy Pelosi and her "astro turf" come to mind) acted "aghast: and "appalled" at the "anger", "lack of civility", and "disrespect". Their hypocrisy is what was truly appalling, and what was most nauseating was that it had begin to become clear that most them actually believed this shit. To a degree not seen outside communist or fascist states, Democrats had turned into a pack of lemmings, being led and controlled by populist demagoguery, catalyzed by market-selective news media and social media.

This is the future. We have seen the enemy and they are we. Enlightenment thinking and real liberalism are dead. Humanity is sliding once again into mindless, authoritarian collectivism. Sparta conquers Athens._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before